Etiquette regarding the Free Press Boycott
Did you read the original post? I'm not arguing that people "can't" do anything. I'm asking if people can tolerate each other's opposing viewpoints.
Yes and above you were acting as if people were trying to tell you that you can't read the Free Press. Some people merely don't want their favorite website to be churning up a profit for a paper that was dishonest and refused to comment on the criticism of that dishonesty.
People should tolerate each others view points on this issue, including a post that reads: "please don't post links that generate a profit for the Free Press."
The words 'profit' and 'free press' in the same sentence? You're having a laugh, right?
I understand that. My complain is the behavior where a new poster is negged, and the first 8 responses in his thread are "DON'T LINK THE FREE PRESS". It's silly, and makes the blog unreadable.
Furthermore, you understand that LINKS don't generate a cent of revenue. CLICKS do. If you don't want to support the Free Press, don't click the link.
The simple solution is to offer a printable link with no revenue for any potential clicks. It seems to make everyone happy on this blog.
The simple solution is for the anti-freep camp to not click anything. I'm not going through any extra work to make a print link when you're not going to click through anyway.
That is fine to not take the extra 1 to 2 seconds to get a printable link, but then understand that it is okay if someone politely reminds the readers (especially new readers) of the Freep's unethical actions - so long as they don't "hijack" the thread with mutiple posts on it.
how about if you start by not taking the Lord's name in vain?
when life gives you lemons you FIND A NEW GOD
So "the actual rules set forth by the owner of the blog" supersedes thinking for yourself? Not the greatest logic there.
Fixed.
Dude, it's a freaking blog written by a Michigan fan just like us. Brian is very well-researched and is usually a reasonable guy, but his word is not infallible.